The St. Petersburg City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.[1]

February 11(24), 1906

Published:First published in 1930 inProletarskaya Revolutsia, No. 12 (107).

      Published according to the secretary’s notes, now in the archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1965,

      Moscow,Volume 10,

      pages120-122.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Statements Concerning the Validity of the Credentials of the
Delegations to the Conference from the Okruzhnoi and Vyborg District
Organisations

Thedecision taken on the Okruzhnoi organisation has annulled the original
Conference decision on the general verification of credentials from the formal
point of view. There were 56 doubtful votes in the Okruzhnoi organisation, and
it could be a question of them alone. The Committee and the district conference
have verified the election; if we are not to trust the decision of the
St. Petersburg Committee on the Okruzhnoi organisation, then we must be
consistent and undertake to verify all districts.

Thequestion posed by Comrade Martov bears on the formal aspect; if you have
decided to examine here one district in view of the protests voiced, you should
take a similar deci sion on the other districts about which protests are being
made. Comrade Akim[2]sees an irregularity in Vyborg District, and the
Conference, which has passed a decision on the Okruzhnoi organisation, should
extend its decision to Vyborg District.

Ona point of order. If the St. Petersburg Committee has recognised the
      competence of the Okruzhnoi organisation, then I am surprised at Comrade
      Martov’s proposal to bar the organisation from this Conference.

ComradeMartov’s proposal cannot be put to the vote—only the
St. Petersburg Committee can decide the question he has raised.

Think,comrades, of the monstrosity proposed to you. An important question has
been under discussion in the decision of which the whole St. Petersburg
organisation should take part, and it is suddenly proposed that you should cut
off a huge section—Okruzhnoi District. Think of it. I consider voting on a
thing like that impermissible in principle. I move that this meeting vote to
decide whether it wants Comrade Martov’s proposal to be put to the vote.

Wemust consider the matter cooly. The question is wheth er we may deprive the
Okruzhnoi organisation of the right to vote at this Conference. Since its
delegation is validly accredited, it would be the height of unlawfulness to
debar it from voting here. You have recognised its credentials to be valid; it
did not vote when the issue of their validity was under discussion, but it must
take part in the voting on all subsequent questions.

Resolution Against Martov’s Proposal to Withdraw the Report of the
St. Petersburg Committee

Thismeeting considers that the question raised by Coin rade Martov is not open
to discussion and does not require voting.

Argumentation of Resolution

ComradeMartov is wrong; he says that remarks like “there he is
again” are not allowed, but they are. All sorts of remarks are allowed at
meetings. As regards the report, we must hear it. It will take a mere fifteen or
twenty minutes; if we do not hear it, it may be said that juridical in addition
to moral irregularities were committed at the Conference (that there were
juridical as well as moral omissions). We must certainly hear the report. If you
see fit to approve it, do so; and if you do not see fit, do not approve it.

Proposal on the St. Petersburg Committee Report

Iwish to table a motion. The question brought up by Comrade Akim—that the
report be approved—may be shelved. I move the following decision:
“Having heard the report of the St. Petersburg Committee, this meeting
recognises the Conference delegations to be validly accredited, the Conference
duly established, and its decision binding on the St. Petersburg
Social-Democratic organisation.”

Statement in Support of the Proposal

Iagree that we must vote in logical order, but I hold my proposal to be the
most radical, while the others are conciliatory. If you reject the radical
proposal, you will then vote on the conciliatory proposals.

Comment on the Resolution Concerning the Tactics of Boycott

Iam sorry if I have wearied this meeting by a long
resolution, but if we want to discuss its substance, we must have a
clear idea of what
we are criticising. My draft sums up all that has been said in the course of
previous discussions and what there has been no time to speak of here. We must
not drag out this meeting any longer. If there is no time to discuss the
resolution, we can elect a committee.

[1]TheSt. Petersburg City Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.was called by
the St. Petersburg Committee on February 11 (24), 1906, to decide on the Party’s
attitude to the State Duma. It was led by Lenin. There were 65 delegates with
the right to vote. Delegates to the Conference were elected after the discussion
and voting of the tactical platforms of the Bolsheviks and the
Mensheviks—one delegate per 30 voting Party members. The Bolsheviks won an
impressive majority. The Mensheviks demanded that the votes cast by the
Okruzhnoi organisation of the R.S.D.L.P., which consisted almost entirely of
Bolsheviks, be declared null and void. But the Conference decided to recognise
the delegation elected by the Okruzhnoi organisation. It heard a report of the
St. Petersburg Committee and passed a resolution moved by Lenin, which
recognisedthe Conference duly representative and valid and its decisions
binding. The report on the attitude to the Duma was made by Lenin (it was not
recorded in the Conference minutes). At the close of his report Lenin read his
draft resolution on the tactics of an active boycott. The Mensheviks moved a
resolution of their own. The Conference voted by a majority for an active
boycott of the Duma.

Todiscuss and finally approve the resolution on the tactics of an active
boycott, a second city conference of the St. Petersburg organisation was held
between late February and early March 1906. It was attended by 62
delegates. Following the debate, in which Lenin took the floor several times,
the Conference approved as a basis the resolution proposed by him. The committee
that was elect ed to edit the resolution included Lenin. The Mensheviks refused
to participate in the committee and left the Conference.

[2]Akim—the Menshevik L. I. Goldman, a Conference delegate.